Conduct diplomacy: How organizational domestication converts “managerial deviance” into self-control and desirability ?

Across organizations, managerial "deviance" is increasingly not punished as a clear rule breach but recoded as a style problem (tone, posture, emotions, narrative) that signals a "style misfit". Building on governmentality, neo-normative control and identity regulation, we ask: how do organizations convert such contested style gaps into durable self-control ? We report a qualitative multi-case study of five organizations (cosmetics, energy distribution, energy production, banking, military) based on 20 interviews with managers and key evaluators, complemented by internal documents. Using iterative coding (Gioia-inspired) and cross-case patterning, we identify a recurrent process moving from Domestication (D) and Autodomestication (AD) to Personal Isomorphism (IP) and Normed Authenticity (AN) - two concepts developed in our doctoral research (with IP extending institutional isomorphism to the level of managerial selves; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Findings show that D/AD are widespread, while IP/AN emerge when evaluation is polycentric and when "authenticity" becomes explicitly assessed and career-relevant. These findings foreground social evaluations – how multiple evaluators produce, circulate, and stabilize style judgments across evaluative arenas, with reputational and career consequences. We contribute by theorizing "conduct diplomacy" as the micro-political work that translates, arbitrates and stabilizes style labels across evaluative arenas, enabling the D→AD→IP→AN conversion and clarifying its conditions and implications.